March 28, 2006

Superior, Colo., (March 28, 2006) – Newmerix, a provider of application quality and change management software for PeopleSoft applications, today announced that Crosstex Energy has successfully implemented Newmerix’s Automate!™Test—an automated testing solution for PeopleSoft. Crosstex will utilize the tool for several automated testing projects, including Sarbanes-Oxley testing, but the company found immediate cost-savings by using Automate!Test to migrate employee, vendor and customer data from recently acquired companies into their standard PeopleSoft implementation...

Before I started Newmerix, I took a long time deciding what business segment to get into. I looked at a number of possibilities including SRM, real-estate management systems, charting components, packaged application management, and J2EE management. In the end, my short list was whittled down to J2EE and packaged application management. My final decision to go with packaged application mangement was made along a few dimensions. One of them, was that there was already a glut of J2EE startups out there (Wily, Sitraka, Parasoft, Altoweb, Altaworks, etc..) and I thought the market would consolidate sooner than I could build and real value or differentiation into a product of my own. Well, it looks like I was right to be concerned with the timing of everything - as the market does appear to be consolidating. Today, another major management player decided to stake a claim in the J2EE market. BMC bought Israeli Identify Software for $150MM. This is clearly a response to CA's purchase of Wily only a few months ago for $300MM. All good M&A comes in threes (the most recent example would be the Kintana-ChangePoint-Niku triple play for the ITG space), so any bets on who HP or IBM will buy?

March 27, 2006

I am heading to Software 2006 next week. I'd love to catch up live with any readers or fellow Enterprise 2.0 bloggers that might be attending. I know a number of folks will be there. Drop me a line at nielr@newmerix.com if you plan on attending. If there is enough interest, I'd be happy to organize a dinner for us all.

I wrote in one of my first BigEndan entries about a number of companies that are chipping away at the Microsoft Office suite by producing online versions of each of these applications. Today, Charles pointed me to Zimbra, who will be presenting at Software 2006 next week. I watched their end user demo and it's very interesting. Not only are they providing an online set of features that compete with Outlook, they are providing direct integration with Exchange servers, supporting key features like Blackberry integration and being able to work offline (caching). More importantly though, they have a built in web services interface for mash-ups directly integrated into the platform. Take a look at the demo to see what I am talking about.

The reason I like this is that I think Microsoft is losing out on a golden opportunity to position Outlook as an application platform. There are some interesting applications that seem to have co-opted Outlook as a platform whether it was really designed for that or not. Familiar examples would be Plaxo , GoodContacts, and Salesforce.com Outlook extensions (which I now use religiously). Some more complicated integrations exist like Attensa (which i stopped using 2 days after installing it because it made my machine grind to a halt), and the Mendocino project with SAP.

But is this too little to late? A quick search of Amazon produces only a few books really oriented towards developers trying to build complete applications on top of Outlook (and a number of the reviews point to how hard this really is based on the architecture of Outlook). For those that have read my Increasing Tail blarticle, they will know my philosophy that, in the end, the platforms that win are the ones that seed the market with a killer application and then give developers the most tools to extend the value of the platform with their own niche applications and content. Out of the gates, Zimbra gets the developer part. The question is can they find the killer app that will drive their adoption?

I read a good article covering the results of a smallish survey in Australia on Oracle, SAP and Microsoft. Not suprisingly, Oracle and SAP seem pretty evenly split, there is skepticism about any up front cost savings of SOA, Microsoft is very far behind in perception, and licensing fees are becoming a much bigger source of concern as folks contemplate how much to pay for licensing before they make any final choices about Fusion or NetWeaver.

For those unfamiliar with the options for Oracle/PeopleSoft/JD Edwards/Siebel - here is a short list to get you started:

March 23, 2006

I an earlier post - I pointed to a fun online debate over who would win: SAP or Oracle. Each participant wrote an article arguing their reasons for SAP's or Oracle's inevitable success or failure. The follow up is a rebuttal from both original authors to their counterpart's first piece. It's worth a read, if for nothing else than the pretty open handed jabs between the authors.

Okay - for once I am not trying to tag a version number onto something -this one already has a version number. In Plato's Software Children (PodCast) I wrote a bit about Richard Stallman, the FSF, and the GNU Public License (GPL). Many of are familiar with the GNU open source licensing scheme and some of its nasty viral effects. Well, the folks at the FSF have put out their first draft of GPL 3.0. While it cleans up a lot of the viral dynamics of the 2.0 version (there is specific language around it being able to cooperate with code bases that include multiple licensing schemes), it does introduce some nasty anti-patent suit clauses. With the advent of Creative Commons (which this blog is licensed under) and the growth of the BSD open licensing scheme, why do the folks at FSF always have to whack you with a stick after giving you a carrot if you are trying to build and sell enterprise software for a living? Some excellent coverage on the subject can be found in these articles:

I read an interesting article/exploration by Danah Boyd on the releative successes of Friendster and MySpace. While it is more "anecdotal viewpoint" than classic research (which is what we are all pretty much doing online anyway), it has some interesting nuggets in it. Also - in many ways it is arguing a similar point that I made in the Increasing Tail - platforms who give their users tools to develop the tail end of content almost always win.